|
On January 14 2014 00:26 Destructicon wrote:
You are so wrong it hurts.
FF is a shit mechanic indeed.
[...]
Basically you are wrong about each and every point you make, and the worst thing is, you don't even realize it, you can't even fathom how bad FF are for this game, you genuinely believe they are good, which makes me lose faith in humanity, that such a flat out bad mechanic isn't evident to everyone.
just because you disagree does not make his opinion wrong.
Some of the points you made are absolutely viable. However, you are exaggerating massively: in early game toss has almost no FFs available to just trap an entire army out on the map. That's actually one of the main reasons for the MsC: toss wasn't able to move out early game because of the weak GW units + the lack of mass FF to protect units.
Furthermore, FFs don't completely nullify micro, they actually also push the micro needed by other races (mostly Terrans though  ) your units get partly trapped by some FFs? fly in a rescue medvac, pick them up and get them to safety.
for Zerg (which is by design more of a positional, flanking race than Terran) there at least is burrow movement to circumvent FF blocks.
Not all is black and white. Just saying...
|
You are being sarcastic aren't you?
|
Brunei Darussalam566 Posts
On January 14 2014 00:26 Destructicon wrote:
You are so wrong it hurts.
(...)
Basically you are wrong about each and every point you make, and the worst thing is, you don't even realize it, you can't even fathom how bad FF are for this game, you genuinely believe they are good, which makes me lose faith in humanity, that such a flat out bad mechanic isn't evident to everyone.
This is how you respond to a blog titled "Devil's Advocate"?
I hope this is just a (bad) attempt at trolling.
EDIT: Rofl, sniped.
|
Does no one understand the meaning of the term "Devil's Advocate?"
The responses in this thread are just embarrassing.
|
On January 14 2014 00:35 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 00:32 opisska wrote:
I completely agree and was always thinking the same. The problem is that people just hate everything they lose to. Thus, every aspect of the game that can quickly turn the tides, is hated upon, because it is a visible thing to which people lost, while when there are lots of small stupid things, almost noobody whines about them, because it's not easy to connect the loss with them. Sadly, this is the reason why we are slowly losing everything interesting, because Blizzard listens (if reluctantly) to common bitching. I have said many times that I would prefer Blizzard to not to listen to the "community" in most aspects. Also, the whole mapmaking community is guilty, as they have created a "standard" to which they require everyone to adhere, (otherwise the map is "bad") which forbids creating maps where something is strong (ffs, tanks, blinkstalkers ...), thus killing any unusual gameplay.
In the end, everything converges to absolute blandness in the holy name of balance, where the only things that survive the endelss vawes of nerfs are the most uncotroversial, thus most boring. No, you are wrong. The map makers have no guilt in this, they genuinely can't create maps outside certain bounds because then the map will be broken, either in favor of or against Protoss, its that simple. And please make at least an effort to try to understand how bad the mechanic is before you post, it limits micro, its limits strategic options, and it limits certain kinds of gameplay.
They genuinely believe that they can't make maps outside of a certain bounds is a more accurate way to put it. Whether it's truly the case or not can be debated.
Elegant solutions might emerge if maps that are thought to be imbalanced are forced onto players at high levels, since it forces them to confront the problems of the map. The ingenuity of the players able to handle those maps might allow for more variety in play styles, too.
I have never understood the "limits micro" argument, either when it's applied to FFs or to fungal in WoL. Splitting up units for optimal engagements on multiple flanks and treating caster energy as a resource to be efficiently burned off enhance micro and gameplay imo. Furthermore, with speedivacs and fast burrowing roaches, both the other races have micro techniques to salvage the situation after unfavorable FFs.
|
I wanted to see how games would play if forcefields could be destroyed by the opponent so a small group could be trapped while a large army could focus fire their way out of forcefield traps. Unfortunately enabling units to be able to target forcefields was beyond my map editing ability.
|
On January 14 2014 01:59 dvorakftw wrote:
I wanted to see how games would play if forcefields could be destroyed by the opponent so a small group could be trapped while a large army could focus fire their way out of forcefield traps. Unfortunately enabling units to be able to target forcefields was beyond my map editing ability.
I've heard this idea a couple of times already and I would really like to know how this would play out. I think this has potential even so a lot of tweaking the Hp of FFs would be required.
|
On January 14 2014 01:54 TrippSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 00:35 Destructicon wrote:On January 14 2014 00:32 opisska wrote:
I completely agree and was always thinking the same. The problem is that people just hate everything they lose to. Thus, every aspect of the game that can quickly turn the tides, is hated upon, because it is a visible thing to which people lost, while when there are lots of small stupid things, almost noobody whines about them, because it's not easy to connect the loss with them. Sadly, this is the reason why we are slowly losing everything interesting, because Blizzard listens (if reluctantly) to common bitching. I have said many times that I would prefer Blizzard to not to listen to the "community" in most aspects. Also, the whole mapmaking community is guilty, as they have created a "standard" to which they require everyone to adhere, (otherwise the map is "bad") which forbids creating maps where something is strong (ffs, tanks, blinkstalkers ...), thus killing any unusual gameplay.
In the end, everything converges to absolute blandness in the holy name of balance, where the only things that survive the endelss vawes of nerfs are the most uncotroversial, thus most boring. No, you are wrong. The map makers have no guilt in this, they genuinely can't create maps outside certain bounds because then the map will be broken, either in favor of or against Protoss, its that simple. And please make at least an effort to try to understand how bad the mechanic is before you post, it limits micro, its limits strategic options, and it limits certain kinds of gameplay. They genuinely believe that they can't make maps outside of a certain bounds is a more accurate way to put it. Whether it's truly the case or not can be debated. If you believe modern mapmakers, maps which were balanced 2 years ago had a 95% ZvP winrate because protoss can't ever win if you can't forcefield of your natural with 2 forcefields. It's in their head. People use to play games on maps like XNC and Metalopolis and it worked fine. These supposed restrictions only exist because people are too goddamn lazy to learn more than one build, there is nothing limiting in the game or in forcefields to map design.
You always see this, I remember at the end of WoL seeing some Zerg saying things like that ti is supposedly "impossible" for Zerg to win ZvP without a gasless third because that was everyone was doing, meanwhile Freaky was going 2base infestor into third every single ZvP and everyone knew he was doing it and he still kept winning with it. People said Hydralisks were completely useless vs Terran in WoL but Stephano proved them wrong, everyone called Hydras a "terrible unit" but Stephano randomly started using them and it worked. Just as everyone said that infestors were a "gimmick" that couldn't respond to drops but Stephano made it work.
People say that kind of stuff all too often and then someone randomly steps up and proves that it works. Hell, I've had many debates about Harstem on the viability of MMM in TvZ since mid WoL. I have always gone MMM TvZ in WoL and I still do in HotS, no tanks, no mines, and he kept saying it isn't viable, a progamer. Then MKP comes out of no-where and popularizes the style and he suddenly looks like a genius.
This one however takes the crown:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Xtc5hGz.png)
Random person on reddit suggesting that sensor towers might be the answer to blink all ins, gets called out on 'bronzelogic' and boom, next day in proleague someone randomly does it and wins with it. People, including progamers, will always continue to say that something doesn't work which they never tested simply because it isn't often used and when someone actually does it it turns out it does work and it revolutionizes the metagame.
|
Forcefields are shit
User was warned for this post
|
I never realized there were so many Romanians on TL.
|
On January 14 2014 00:26 Destructicon wrote:
You are so wrong it hurts.
FF is a shit mechanic indeed.
1st It limits micro and small scale skirmishes.
On a strategic scale, the fact that it cuts off retreat paths, or creates ways to retreat is dumb, because this is a positional game, you should be punished for being out of position, however at the same time you shouldn't be punished to such an extent that you lose your entire army, and FF is the worst of both worlds here. It allows Protoss a sort of get out of jail card even though he should have been punished for being in a bad position, and it also heavily punishes an opponent that over commits by making him lose his entire army or significant chunks of it.
On a tactical scale its even worst, you can't stutter step out of it, you can't split out of it, you can't focus fire against it, the FF just throws all those options out the window. Spells like storm or EMP are a lot better, because it forces constant dynamic back and forth posturing, and you can still do something about them even when they land, however with FF, once it lands its over, you've likely lost those units or will take heavy damage while trying to evacuate them with medviacs or burrow.
Ever wonder why PvX matches are so dull and boring, with so much build time on all sides? Its because FF prevent players from being out on the map with small force of units and trying to jock for position, against FF you can't be out on the map, because one bad FF and you've lost your entire army, so you have to wait until you have stim + medivacs or a large enough force as zerg that it doesn't matter.
FF slows the game down by at least 5 minutes if not more.
I also don't even want to touch on what effects it has had upon map making. All maps need to always have a certain size of corridors, chokes, ramps and a certain type of openness, or its just bad, either its too good for FF, or its very bad for it. As a result all maps are forced into a certain type of structure with very little room to work around.
Lastly, the fact that GW units have to be weaker, because of Warp in and FF, is not a + for the game. It doesn't make protoss a more interesting race, it just pidgeon holes them into certain strategies. Deathball on the one hand, because protoss units for the most part are so shitty they can only become cost efficient when fighting as a whole, and 2nd, all-ins, because FFs + WG at a time in the game where the opponent can't easily counter them with mass of units or tech, is super efficient. The net result is just bad, its boring and predictable.
Basically you are wrong about each and every point you make, and the worst thing is, you don't even realize it, you can't even fathom how bad FF are for this game, you genuinely believe they are good, which makes me lose faith in humanity, that such a flat out bad mechanic isn't evident to everyone.
The irony. LOL.
|
As a protoss player who has stopped playing SC2, I believe that forcefield is an ability that makes the game less entertaining than it could be if it had been designed without it. As it is, forcefield can't be removed from the game without completely destroying the balance unless it was 'replaced' by something (somehow) or if the game was redesigned to fill the hole. I'm not too hopeful.
Yes forcefield can be used intelligently, with finesse, and it can sometimes be nice. But it's also a cockblock and it feels like it. If SC2 is to be a spectator game, it shouldn't revolve too much around delaying battles and walls and other such boring stuff. Forcefields are nice when they surround a pack of banelings, not so nice when they block a ramp for 2 minutes straight, forcing the commentators to ramble about random bullshit.
Anyways.
|
That would be true if SC2 took place on completely open maps. It doesn't, however. One forcefield on a ramp wins entire games instantly, which is clearly a sign of broken design.
|
Forget not reading the OP, almost nobody read the title.
|
On January 14 2014 04:17 mechengineer123 wrote:
That would be true if SC2 took place on completely open maps. It doesn't, however. One forcefield on a ramp wins entire games instantly, which is clearly a sign of broken design.
There are a lot of plays that unscouted and unprepared for lead to a win instantly. To me, that situation has very little to do with design and a lot to do with refining your scouting and play to respond appropriately.
If a Terran beats me with an unscouted surprise Banshee attack, I don't blame the Banshee's design. I work on scouting the Starport and preparing with detection and anti-air. It's an equally obnoxious way to lose, but it is clearly my fault for playing badly.
|
On January 14 2014 04:28 TrippSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 04:17 mechengineer123 wrote:
That would be true if SC2 took place on completely open maps. It doesn't, however. One forcefield on a ramp wins entire games instantly, which is clearly a sign of broken design. There are a lot of plays that unscouted and unprepared for lead to a win instantly. To me, that situation has very little to do with design and a lot to do with refining your scouting and play to respond appropriately. If a Terran beats me with an unscouted surprise Banshee attack, I don't blame the Banshee's design. I work on scouting the Starport and preparing with detection and anti-air. It's an equally obnoxious way to lose, but it is clearly my fault for playing badly.
Well, yeah, but the warpprism + FF play is low-risk, high reward stuff, where a major fuckup from one side will mean the end of the game, whereas a counter from the other sides doesn't give him/her the edge. This is what make WP+FF play feel so stupid and 'unfair'. If the Z prepares, they don't die but, don't gain an advantage either - the P will fly in the base and see that the Z is prepared, fly away and warp-in at home. Whereas if they see that the Z in unprepared, they drop the sentries, warp-in zealots/stalkers and the game is over. There is little need for preparation, no need to build 8 gates off 2 bases, basically, little opportunity cost.
It is completely different from a 2-starport + techlab banshee all-in, where the T put all eggs in the banshee basket, and if you've prepared for it and deflect the attack, the T is going to have a tough time the rest of the game. 4-gate is the same - if you scout you'll likely hold it off, and the P is in a position. A strategy game should have a number of high-risk, high-reward tactics, but WP+FF ramps is low-risk and high-reward...
|
On January 14 2014 05:53 arie3000 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 04:28 TrippSC2 wrote:On January 14 2014 04:17 mechengineer123 wrote:
That would be true if SC2 took place on completely open maps. It doesn't, however. One forcefield on a ramp wins entire games instantly, which is clearly a sign of broken design. There are a lot of plays that unscouted and unprepared for lead to a win instantly. To me, that situation has very little to do with design and a lot to do with refining your scouting and play to respond appropriately. If a Terran beats me with an unscouted surprise Banshee attack, I don't blame the Banshee's design. I work on scouting the Starport and preparing with detection and anti-air. It's an equally obnoxious way to lose, but it is clearly my fault for playing badly. Well, yeah, but the warpprism + FF play is low-risk, high reward stuff, where a major fuckup from one side will mean the end of the game, whereas a counter from the other sides doesn't give him/her the edge. This is what make WP+FF play feel so stupid and 'unfair'. If the Z prepares, they don't die but, don't gain an advantage either - the P will fly in the base and see that the Z is prepared, fly away and warp-in at home. Whereas if they see that the Z in unprepared, they drop the sentries, warp-in zealots/stalkers and the game is over. There is little need for preparation, no need to build 8 gates off 2 bases, basically, little opportunity cost. It is completely different from a 2-starport + techlab banshee all-in, where the T put all eggs in the banshee basket, and if you've prepared for it and deflect the attack, the T is going to have a tough time the rest of the game. 4-gate is the same - if you scout you'll likely hold it off, and the P is in a position. A strategy game should have a number of high-risk, high-reward tactics, but WP+FF ramps is low-risk and high-reward... That exists for so many things though. If you don't have a zealot in the wall and lings sneak in that is pretty big damage. If there is a zealot as lings check it out it's no biggy, just send the lings back home to help in the battle. Same with various hellion strats, if Z isn't ready every drone will die but if Z is ready the game most certainly isn't over for T. A doom drop that is not expected kills 2 forges, a templar archives and a nexus, if stalkers are ready and expecting? Well, just boost in the other direction.
|
I dont understand how everyone is in agreement that starcraft 2 sucks yet people still play it.
|
On January 14 2014 00:35 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 00:32 opisska wrote:
I completely agree and was always thinking the same. The problem is that people just hate everything they lose to. Thus, every aspect of the game that can quickly turn the tides, is hated upon, because it is a visible thing to which people lost, while when there are lots of small stupid things, almost noobody whines about them, because it's not easy to connect the loss with them. Sadly, this is the reason why we are slowly losing everything interesting, because Blizzard listens (if reluctantly) to common bitching. I have said many times that I would prefer Blizzard to not to listen to the "community" in most aspects. Also, the whole mapmaking community is guilty, as they have created a "standard" to which they require everyone to adhere, (otherwise the map is "bad") which forbids creating maps where something is strong (ffs, tanks, blinkstalkers ...), thus killing any unusual gameplay.
In the end, everything converges to absolute blandness in the holy name of balance, where the only things that survive the endelss vawes of nerfs are the most uncotroversial, thus most boring. No, you are wrong. The map makers have no guilt in this, they genuinely can't create maps outside certain bounds because then the map will be broken, either in favor of or against Protoss, its that simple. And please make at least an effort to try to understand how bad the mechanic is before you post, it limits micro, its limits strategic options, and it limits certain kinds of gameplay.
No I am not wrong. I was not around for professional BW but I played that game and understand it to some extend, so I can see that many Proleague maps, were clearly broken in favor or against some races, yet such maps were being created for many consecutive years and everybody liked it. In SC2 this is suddenly like the worst sin ever. Every map that doesn't lend itself well to standard play of any race is instantly droped to trash. Everyone whines about "mech not being viable", but the instant somebody makes a map with useful siege tank positions, it's labeled as "siege tank abuse" and the map is never played.
And please, don't use the argument "please learn about X before you post". It is a kind of personal attack when you try to put yourself in a superior position, because you allegedly "understand" the situation most, while this great understanding is just your opinion.
|
On January 14 2014 06:43 Entertaining wrote:
I dont understand how everyone is in agreement that starcraft 2 sucks yet people still play it.
People rarely talk at length about good things, dude. Rather, people like to bitch, moan and complain. Hence, forums (especially like this one) where people like to talk about stuff tend to attract more of the complainers. The serial complainers on TL are a small part of the overall TL community itself a small part of the SC2 community. Don't fuss the whiners.
Personally, I play SC2 because I really like the game. It is a well designed and well balanced game.
It may just be that quite a few other people feel the same way. They just don't post about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
